How long does it take for the 4.0 kg block to reach the floor?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on calculating the time it takes for a 4.0 kg block to reach the floor when connected to another block via a massless rope over a pulley. The pulley has a diameter of 17 cm and a mass of 2.0 kg, with a friction torque of 0.46 Nm. The correct formula for acceleration is derived as a = [ F / r + (m1 - m2)g ] / (m1 + m2 + m3 / 2), leading to a time calculation of approximately 0.7478 seconds after correcting the radius used in the calculations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newton's second law of motion
  • Familiarity with torque and moment of inertia concepts
  • Knowledge of kinematic equations for uniformly accelerated motion
  • Basic principles of rotational dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of torque and its application in rotational motion
  • Learn about moment of inertia for different shapes and its impact on rotational dynamics
  • Study the kinematic equations in-depth, especially for systems involving pulleys
  • Explore advanced problems involving friction in rotational systems
USEFUL FOR

Students studying physics, particularly those focusing on mechanics, as well as educators looking for examples of pulley systems and rotational dynamics in problem-solving contexts.

booboo21407
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The two blocks in the figure (Intro 1 figure) are connected by a massless rope that passes over a pulley. The pulley is 17 cm in diameter and has a mass of 2.0 kg. As the pulley turns, friction at the axle exerts a torque of magnitude 0.46 Nm .

If the blocks are released from rest, how long does it take the 4.0 kg block to reach the floor?

(Intro 1 Figure):http://session.masteringphysics.com/problemAsset/1070551/3/12.P70.jpg


Homework Equations



torque= r * F
sum of torques = moment of inertia * angular acceleartion
angular acceleration * radius = acceleration
x=v0t + 1/2 a t^2

The Attempt at a Solution



I now that v0 is o so the i solve for t in the equation, t = sqrt(2h / a).
a = [ F / r + (m1 - m2)g ] / (m1 + m2 + m3 / 2)

then i plug in a into t=sqrt(2h/a)
= sqrt{ h(2m1 + 2m2 + m3) / [ F / r + (m1 - m2)g ] }
=t = sqrt{ 1( 2 * 4 + 2 * 2 + 2) / [ 0.46 / 0.17 + (4 - 2)9.81 ] }
=.79s
I got it wrong, can anyone help me to see what i did wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The diameter is 17cm, so your radius is half of that. Give that a try. I see you have 17 instead for radius.
 
booboo21407 said:
a = [ F / r + (m1 - m2)g ] / (m1 + m2 + m3 / 2)
Show how you derived this result.
 
This is how i found the equation for acceleration

Let:
m1 be the left hand mass,
T1 be the left hand tension,
m2 be the right hand mass,
T2 be the right hand tension,
g be the acceleration due to gravity,
a be the acceleration of the masses,
alpha be the angular acceleration of the pulley,
r be the radius of the pulley (assumed solid),
F be the friction couple,
h be the descent for m1,
t be the time taken.

For mass m1:
m1 g - T1 = m1 a
T1 = m1(g - a)

For mass m2:
T2 - m2 g = m2 a
T2 = m2(g + a)

For the pulley:
(T1 - T2)r - F = I alpha
= (m3 r^2 / 2)(a / r)

T1 - T2 = F / r + m3 a / 2

Eliminating T1 and T2:
m1(g - a) - m2(g + a) = F / r + m3 a / 2

(m1 - m2)g - (m1 + m2)a - m3 a / 2 - F / r
(m1 + m2 + m3 / 2)a = F / r + (m1 - m2)g

a = [ F / r + (m1 - m2)g ] / (m1 + m2 + m3 / 2)

Did i derieved it correctly?


Also did i solve for time corectly.
h = at^2 / 2
t = sqrt(2h / a)
= sqrt{ h(2m1 + 2m2 + m3) / [ F / r + (m1 - m2)g ]


Ok i see that i plug in the wrong number for the radius.
=t = sqrt{ 1( 2 * 4 + 2 * 2 + 2) / [ 0.46 / 0.085 + (4 - 2)9.81 ] }
t=.7478 s

is this answer correct?
 
booboo21407 said:
Eliminating T1 and T2:
m1(g - a) - m2(g + a) = F / r + m3 a / 2
OK.
(m1 - m2)g - (m1 + m2)a - m3 a / 2 - F / r
(m1 + m2 + m3 / 2)a = F / r + (m1 - m2)g
Redo this last step.
 
I don't understand wat you mean, did i made a mistake deriving it? i did over and i still got the same formula.
 
hmm I got

2g-Ff=ma and Ff*r=I*(a/r), where: a and Ff is unknown. how is this wrong?

you can't look at it like one object anymore?
 
Last edited:
booboo21407 said:
I don't understand wat you mean, did i made a mistake deriving it? i did over and i still got the same formula.
Everything you did up to and including where I said "OK" was good. You just made an algebraic mistake where I said "Redo this last step".
 
Thanks for your help, i figure out where i made an algebra mistake
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K